Care as narrative practice in the context of long‐term care: Theoretical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In this article, we introduce care itself as a narrative practice. We emphasise that all interactions between care providers and older adults in long-term care settings are narrative in nature and foreground experience. BACKGROUND: Every person consists of innumerable stories based on experiences over time. Some experiences can be recalled and told as narratives, while others are inscribed into our bodies; they are embodied. These narratives shape who we are and are becoming, and influence how care providers experience and provide nursing care in long-term care settings. MAIN CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS: We highlight the importance of stories to narrative identities and focus on the embodied act of coconstructing new stories in interaction. We emphasise the idea that care in gerontological nursing would benefit from acknowledging and fostering embodied narratives in a systematic way with older adults. CONCLUSIONS: To foster, elicit, and coconstruct evolving and forward-looking narratives based on older adults' verbal and embodied narratives is essential for the quality of care in long-term settings. Care providers must be aware that they are co-authors of older adults' continuous storying and restorying of their lives. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To recognise that both residents and care providers are narrative beings shift the current culture of care away from rationalised and emotionally devoid consequences of care. Understanding the theoretical underpinnings of care itself as narrative practice is a first step in developing care practices that place relationships between residents and care providers at the centre of practice. There is a need for the implementation of strategies to think and work narratively in long-term care settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".